| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - August 16 2007 : 11:51:24 AM
|
I always felt that the average 7th trooper was probably a pretty poor shot. Much like Crooks men.. firing thousands of rounds and hitting very little.
Plus I'm a Vietnam vet and saw horrible marksmanship among our soldiers there as well. But here's something interesting I recently came across:
During the battle for Peleliu in WW II, this is what it took to kill just ONE Japanese soldier:
1,331 rounds of .30 cal rifle fire
152 rounds of .45 cal
69 rounds of .50 cal
9 rounds of 60mm mortar
5 rounds of 81 mm mortar
1 rifle grenade
10 hand grenades
6 rounds of 75 mm artillery
5 rounds of 105 artillery
1 round of 155 artillery
1/2 round of 8 " artillery
And--this does not take into account ANY of the thousands of naval 16", 8" 5" and 40 MM shells fired from the fleet, nor ANY of the 250, 500, and thousand pound bombs dropped by Navy and Marine planes. Nor any of the napalm they dropped or the many thousands of rounds of .30 and .50 cal rounds the planes fired in straffing runs.
Now that's all a LOT of ammo!!
So--what does it all have to do with LBH? I guess not much. The terrain and situation are hardly compareable. But it does illustrate the fact that one shot hardly equals one kill--then or now.
|
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 16 2007 : 5:05:58 PM
|
Good point, Brent. I do kind of wonder how they come up with their statistics on what was expended. Kind of like they take all the firepower used in the war and divided it by the number of Japs killed and come out with their figure. I wonder if they figure in the tens of thousands killed by two bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki??
But it's not just the soldiers who were poor shots. Seems like I read that at the Fetterman battle--notice I don't use the term "massacre"--the Indians were said to have used 25,000 arrows. They killed 81 or so soldiers. So go figure. |
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 16 2007 : 5:52:21 PM
|
They would have a pretty good handle on the ammo expended per island, so I'd doubt the numbers involved more than just that one plot of land divided by the number of dead Japanese soldiers.
How in the world would anyone know about arrows fired at Fetterman? Who said that? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 16 2007 : 11:53:22 PM
|
My bad. It was 24,583 arrows.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
They would have a pretty good handle on the ammo expended per island, so I'd doubt the numbers involved more than just that one plot of land divided by the number of dead Japanese soldiers.
How in the world would anyone know about arrows fired at Fetterman? Who said that?
|
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 17 2007 : 05:28:00 AM
|
DC:
Those figures came from the "best guess" of 10,000 Japanese soldiers killed on the Island and then using that against the total # of rounds fired as compiled by the First Marine Division. So there were a total of 13,319,488 rounds (yes-thirten MILLION) of .30 cal fired and to kill 10,000 men that's how they got 1,331 per soldier. And so on.
OF course, just how accurate those ammo expenditure numbers are is anyones guess, but I think the overall point is that it takes a lot of ammo (arrows too!!) just to kill on opponent. |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 17 2007 : 08:03:48 AM
|
I neglected to show where I got those figures.. sorry!!
They're from a book called "The United States Marine Corps in WW II"
A one volume history from Wake to Tsingtao, by the men who fought in the Pacific and by distinguished Marine experts, Authors and Newspapermen.
Edited by S.E. Smith
965 pages Random House, 1969. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 17 2007 : 9:33:13 PM
|
Brent, I believe you also. Frank, I believe you as well. I believe that the critical issue here in not an "exact" amount of ammo or arrows discharged during a particular battle but, the realization that men, all men, under the stress of combat display a tendency towards poor marksmanship which, in turn, results in an excessive expenditure of ammo/rounds/arrows.
Years after the Fetterman Battle, an Oglala named fire Thunder stated: " Soldiers chased them. The air was filled with bullets. But all at once there more arrows than bullets-so many arrows that they looked like grasshoppers falling on the soldiers."
There were a great many warriors involved in this battle, if 1,000 warriors fired a minimum of twenty five arrows (which is reasonable) then Frank's estimation is reasonable also.
Of course, belief in any issue is a personal choice. |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 20 2007 : 07:11:13 AM
|
| I guess the only thing we can be sure of is that it was more than 80!!! |
|
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 20 2007 : 10:15:21 AM
|
| Right, Brent and Joe. I don't think there's any forum rules I've seen that says people can't speak in generalities or can't make a posting without posting chapter and verse when making a statement considering all the things we've read over the last 20 years or so. I discuss different subjects daily with friends, be it baseball, football, Custer without being forced to state the written authority of how may yards LT ran for on Dec. 14th, 2007. Some are just more anal than others. I think the idea, besides learning, is also just to "talk" online and enjoy exchanging views. If everyone demanded specificity on what happened every minute from the time Custer left the Crow's Nest until he died, the boards would be pretty quiet. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 22 2007 : 8:26:35 PM
|
Touché, my friend! There is nothing about this battle that is written in stone. All "white" witnesses died, and, unfortunately, all "Red" witnesses are usually disregarded.
Thus, when attempting to ascertain what actually occurred during this battle, we are left only with reasonableness, probability, and conjecture to aid us in determining what may have happened.
The irony occurs when when posters, who are sincere enough and committed enough to profess their thoughts and beliefs are (unreasonably) assaulted by demands for facts and proof by the extreme minority. Demands that are impossible to confirm,
Discouraged, fatigued, and bewildered, good folk just give up and say, "to hell with it." My plea is directed towards those who care and desire to share their beliefs with this forum, please continue to do so. I need your input because it is valuable and soughtafter because we care!!! |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on August 22 2007 8:43:06 PM |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - August 22 2007 : 10:07:37 PM
|
| Wiggs, I agree with you, Frank, and Brent that anyone should be able to state an opinion without citing references. On the other hand, maybe DC's demands for facts help to keep fantasy from gettin out of hand. |
|
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 23 2007 : 12:03:03 AM
|
"Thus, when attempting to ascertain what actually occurred during this battle, we are left only with reasonableness, probability, and conjecture to aid us in determining what may have happened."
Right, Joe. And there is also the archeology findings. I know some people give Fox's findings a hard time, while others are Fox disciples. I've known Rich Fox for four years now and have been on two tours led by him for myself and five friends and have spent almost a week with him and listening to his findings and the thoughts
and theories of his brother, Dennis.
I have a lot of respect for Rich. But I don't blindly follow all of his conclusions. Rich doesn't believe in the terms "gallant" nor "last stand." I think where I most disagree with him is that I feel there was, in fact, a last stand. Whether it was gallant or a glorious last stand is up to whatever one wants to believe.
As to the last stand, as far as I'm concerned, Custer did make a last stand, as did Calhoun and Keough and their men. If you and I are fighting to the death, back to back, that's a last stand. In my opinion.
I think Rich also points to the lack of a great number of shells or casings around LSH. God, I hate to agree with some others, who will remain nameless, but I'd think that with souveneir-hunters, tourists, etc., over the decades, I wouldn't expect there to be many casings left to be found years later.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 23 2007 : 09:13:30 AM
|
The insertion of the term "Last Stand" to this battle was a major hindrance to history. At the time, it would refer exclusively to a pro-active decision, and had a long literary pedigree from the sacrifice of the man-god to Roland and Arthur and forward. In 1870, the French fought the Battle of the Last Cartridge in and around Sedan, and this was the current template, although it wasn't really the same thing. Once the phrase was used and the image installed in the public, it wasn't in the cards to back down from it.
But other that wishful thinking (it's a great image and makes a great story)there is no actual evidence for it.
Take a map of the enclosed area on LSH. Erase about 20% for those supposed to be on Reno Hill. Move the Custers' bodies to where description placed them, same with Boston and Autie Reed. When you look at the 1877 and 1879 photos of LSH, the markers go south along the road bed and are a LOT thinner west on LSH. Even with the latitude of guesswork granted, what you now have is something that doesn't look like anything but a dash for the hill top, the offices shot off and the move blunted, and a quick collapse. The false impression of those tightly placed markers makes the Last Stand image hard to shake. But it isn't accurate. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 24 2007 : 3:26:57 PM
|
I suppose that if "Last Stand" simply means "last group of men to die" then there probably was some sort of stand. But I don't think it was terribly prolonged. Or organized. At some point they just ran out of space to move, stopped, grouped somewhat together, and died.
Why do I have Henry Fonda and Ft.Apache in my mind every time I think of the "Last Stand?? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 24 2007 : 4:35:35 PM
|
Because the movie spent two hours making you think that. For the time, that was a terrific flick since it departed from some myths (Custer as brilliant general/god)and instituted others (he could have left with Curley, but returned to die with men...). "True, every word....Thursday gave them that...."
A Last Stand, capitalized, was a literary template of willing sacrifice. From Greek myth to Christian fables. Out of politeness, some final moments clearly not chosen (say, Elliott's or others)were called Last Stands. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 24 2007 : 8:50:15 PM
|
The term "last Stand" does evoke romantic images of desperate but, brave men, facing overwhelming odds with grit and determination until the last man dies a glorious death permeated with honor and valor.
Such a scene is a cultural phenomenon of "archetypes" of "Hero's" that represents a group of "people" who desire recognition, admiration, and respect from other groups.
The "incident/battle" that births the Genesis of this absolute adoration may, or may not, be based upon facts. Ironically, such brave tales are, more often, based upon a "stretching" as it were, of the actual truth.
In my mind, a true "Last Stand" is exemplified by Leonidas, and his Spartans at the battle of Thermopylae. Under Spartan law, these men had to remain. Choosing to remain against all odds, when escape was available, truly made this situation a virtual "Last Stand."
I do not see Custer Hill representing such a scenario. I believe every trooper who died there and, elsewhere on the field, would have chosen to escape with their lives if such a choice was at all possible. To do so is perfectly normal and understanding. Such a philosophy in no way demeans their efforts on that day. It is my belief that no "coward" on either side died that day.
In all my readings and viewing of films regarding this battle, I have never read or observed a media that portrayed Custer as a brilliant General, let alone a god. Brave beyond a doubt, this man was responsible for excessive casualties in his "dashes" toward the enemy.
While a great portion of the earlier literature, concerning this battle, initially was proactive towards the Army in general, it was later in time that "scapegoats" for failure were sought. Ultimately, the chief characters in this calamity, Custer, Benteen, and Reno were, in turn, admonished, praised, chastised, revered,loathed, admired,held responsible and abolished of all responsibility for what happened.
Only in the last two decades or so has it become "Politically Correct" to bash the General as an imbecile incarnate. In fact, to say anything positive at all about the man is to be regarded as a simpleton who deserves to be crucified and ridiculed. In the future, no doubt, the pendulum will swing in the other direction.
All of this in the name of rationalizing the defeat of the U. S. Army by a hoard of savage aboriginals who were, God Bless them, not quite human.
Prolar, I whole heartedly agree with you when you say that "fan tansy" has no part in this forum discussion. As evident in the reading of your posts that exemplify a continuous flow of knowledge and credibility; as have others. However, I would be amiss if I did not categorically state that I abhor all "demands" about anything from anyone. An open, frank discussion imbued with candor and freedom is the epitome of what, I feel, this forum is about. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on August 24 2007 8:59:01 PM |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - August 25 2007 : 06:20:02 AM
|
| Wiggs, actually I didn't say that fantasy had no place on the forum. For instance, I read with interest your comments about some seeing Custer's ghost at LBH. I don't believe they do, so I suppose I could consider it fantasy, but still interesting. On the other hand, if this turned into a discussion of the supernatural, I would soon lose interest. The point I tried to make was that maybe DC's skeptism helps to keep us from being covered with "unpicked knit". |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - August 25 2007 : 06:39:59 AM
|
| The rest of us saw no need to point out that Frank's comment about 25,ooo arrows couldn't be an exact figure, but DC did. I thought Frank's pretended correction was exactly what DC's point deserved. |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 25 2007 : 07:37:12 AM
|
We're all armchair quarterbacks in a sense--second guessers. As has been almost everyone who has commented on this battle (and it's participants) ever since it was fought. Just about every conceivable opinion has been expressed by someone or other. And then lambasted by someone else.
I guess it's just HOW you refute (or try to ) someone else's opinion. I prefer to do it by trying to defend mine, and not blasting someone else. Besides--we'll never know if any of us is right!!! The more folks I can convince that sending Benteen off was Custers biggest mistake, the happier I am
And I don't mind the "what if" discussions-- |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 25 2007 : 6:12:19 PM
|
I didn't object to the number of 25k arrows, per se. I'd have questioned any number, even those far more plausible. I wanted to know, not ever having read such a thing, who said it, since Frank claimed "the Indians were said to have used 25,000 arrows...." Okay. By who? And why is it considered valid?
It's not inappropriate - much less anal - to call attention to these periodic sweeping statements that, as the misunderstood presence of LBH artifacts proves, can become part of the easy-to-remember-although-baseless-in-fact stories about the Indian Wars. If actually stated somewhere, it would have to be a number pulled out of someone's butt. A guess. A wishful thought. Who would have counted, who would have possibly known? Three hundred arrows fired per corpse achieved? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 25 2007 : 7:59:09 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by frankboddn
it's not just the soldiers who were poor shots. Seems like I read that at the Fetterman battle--notice I don't use the term "massacre"--the Indians were said to have used 25,000 arrows. They killed 81 or so soldiers. So go figure.
With all sincerity Prolar, Touché. Your reference to my thread concerning "Ghosts" on the battlefield certainly is rooted in the field of thought many would consider to be in the realm of fantasy.
The interesting thing about Frank's comment is that he prefaced his statement with a very plausible disclosure, that it "seems like" he read that 25,000 arrows were discharged in the Fetterman battle. I am not certain how many warriors were involved in this battle. I do know there were a great many,probably as many there as Custer would eventually face.
Now, as a exuberant member of the forum, Have made a statement sans the actual facts at my disposal. However, I am making a reasonable statement based on a "recollection" which may or may not be faulty. In doing so, there is no inherent attempt to create a falsehood with the devious purpose to infuse the board with fantasy, confusion, or unreasonable speculation. The number 25,000 is reasonable (if not provable)if the warriors numbered 2,000 or more.
The statement, therefore, is not unusual, ridiculous, fantastic, nor disconcerting to the average post. Perhaps that is why myself, and no other viewer made a specific comment about the "arrows" other than D.C.
For example, if you Prolar,(or any other poster) were to ask me, "Where did you get those numbers Joe?" I would have several options of response:
a: Find the quoted material;
b: Unable to locate the information reiterate that the quote is based upon a remembrance;
c. ignore the request.
The manner in which D.C. has proposed his inquiry of "numbers" from Frank has been very reasonable. The fact that Frank decided to not respond to that request as equally reasonable. No one is obligated to respond to a request simply because it is asked.
"Skepticism" is perfectly acceptable when it is offered in genuine interest and, does not impugn an individual with unsubstantiated allegations of nefarious intent to deceive the forum. When it is perceived that the request has been manifested as a "demand" then the hostilities begin. Is it not our collective responsibility to treat each other with respect and dignity
In conclusion, I believe that the interaction of all parties in this discourse have been reasonable and appreciated. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on August 25 2007 8:24:41 PM |
|
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 25 2007 : 11:17:27 PM
|
HI, Joe and Prolar. I suppose if I wasn't so busy doing other things I could take the time to re-read "The Fetterman Massacre," "Red Cloud's Revenge," "Moon of Bitter Cold," "The Bloody Bozeman," "Crimson Prairie," "The Sioux Indian Wars," "The American Heritage HIstory of the Indian Wars,"Great Western Indian Fights,"The Bozeman Trail" or any other number of books I've read over the last 15-20 years or people who live in the area who have studied the fight and discussed it with me. But I'm not going to.
I'm almost afraid to say that Crook's men fired X number of rounds at the Rosebud because I don't want to have to look through my Rosebud books to have to justify that either.
As for now? I'm going to go back to watching the Chargers-Cardinals on the boob tube. Y'all have a nice weekend. |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 26 2007 : 05:30:20 AM
|
It's not like it will be a question on a history test--
'How many arrows were fired by the Indians during the Fetterman Fight":
A.2,000
B.80
c Six million
d: 25,000
I don't suppose anyone cares about the exact number--I sure don't. 25,000 seems a reasonable ESTIMATE. NO one really knows for sure.
Frank: Don't forget "Indian Fighting Army" by Fairfax Downey. |
Edited by - Brent on August 26 2007 05:43:55 AM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 26 2007 : 11:52:06 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by frankboddn
. Seems like I read that at the Fetterman battle--notice I don't use the term "massacre"--the Indians were said to have used 25,000 arrows. They killed 81 or so soldiers. So go figure.
Frank, your point is well taken. we read so much of this battle during the course of many years that the informational sources become shelved in the back compartment of our consciousness. Imagine my surprise when i accidental ran across this paragraph this morning:
In Vietnam, it was estimated that some firefights had 50,000 bullets fired for each soldier killed. In the Battle of the Rosebud, eight days before the Little Big Horn fight, Gen. Cook's forces fired about 25,000 rounds and may have caused about 100 Indian casualties."
for a certainty the circumstances are different by the numbers are eerily similar. Like you, I don,t have the time or inclination to peruse all my sources for the last 25 years but, the above may be the premise of your re-collection.
The author then goes on to give further fantastic stories of tremendous amounts of weapon's fire with little effect. For example, 42,00 rounds were expended or lost. This rate translates into the soldiers hitting one Indian for about 840 rounds.
Now a demand could be made from the author where he obtained his data. Whether he will acquiesce is another story.
See www.Lonestarrifle.com/C.htmlustermd |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on August 26 2007 11:55:03 AM |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 26 2007 : 1:45:22 PM
|
Joe: That estimate for Vietnam is reasonable enough--with the high rates of fire and the "lightness" of the weapons (especially the M-16), one soldier could use up his "basic load" (180 rounds in our outfit) in a matter of minutes. Without really aiming at anything and usually w/o hitting anything.
As for the Fetterman fight arrow totals--I would imagine that if there were really 2,000 Indians, a certain # never got close enough to Fetterman to even fire a shot. That's a large swarm of people around 80 men, and they could easily have gotten in each other's way. And certain # of others --while yelling and screaming--probably didn't shoot any arrows even if they could. Much like soldiers in modern times--a certain # in any battle never fire their weapon. But then there were undoubtedly a # of Indians who positively rained arrows at Fetterman.
So who knows???? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The 7th's marksmanship
